Literature DB >> 20080264

Are stentless valves hemodynamically superior to stented valves? Long-term follow-up of a randomized trial comparing Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve with the Toronto Stentless Porcine Valve.

Gideon Cohen1, Brandon Zagorski, George T Christakis, Campbell D Joyner, Jessica Vincent, Jeri Sever, Sumaya Harbi, Randi Feder-Elituv, Fuad Moussa, Bernard S Goldman, Stephen E Fremes.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The benefit of stentless valves remains in question. In 1999, a randomized trial comparing stentless and stented valves was unable to demonstrate any hemodynamic or clinical benefits at 1 year after implantation. This study reviews long-term outcomes of patients randomized in the aforementioned trial.
METHODS: Between 1996 and 1999, 99 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement were randomized to receive either a stented Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve (CE) (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, Calif) or a Toronto Stentless Porcine Valve (SPV) (St Jude Medical, Minneapolis, Minn). Among these, 38 patients were available for late echocardiographic follow-up (CE, n = 17; SPV, n = 21). Echocardiographic analysis was undertaken both at rest and with dobutamine stress, and functional status (Duke Activity Status Index) was compared at a mean of 9.3 years postoperatively (range, 7.5-11.1 years). Clinical follow-up was 82% complete at a mean of 10.3 years postoperatively (range, 7.5-12.2 years).
RESULTS: Preoperative characteristics were similar between groups. Effective orifice areas increased in both groups over time. Although there were no differences in effective orifice areas at 1 year, at 9 years, effective orifice areas were significantly greater in the SPV group (CE, 1.49 +/- 0.59 cm(2); SPV, 2.00 +/- 0.53 cm(2); P = .011). Similarly, mean and peak gradients decreased in both groups over time; however, at 9 years, gradients were lower in the SPV group (mean: CE, 10.8 +/- 3.8 mm Hg; SPV, 7.8 +/- 4.8 mm Hg; P = .011; peak: CE, 20.4 +/- 6.5 mm Hg; SPV, 14.6 +/- 7.1 mm Hg; P = .022). Such differences were magnified with dobutamine stress (mean: CE, 22.7 +/- 6.1 mm Hg; SPV, 15.3 +/- 8.4 mm Hg; P = .008; peak: CE, 48.1 +/- 11.8 mm Hg; SPV, 30.8 +/- 17.7 mm Hg; P = .001). Ventricular mass regression occurred in both groups; however, no differences were demonstrated between groups either on echocardiographic, magnetic resonance imaging, or biochemical (plasma B-type [brain] natriuretic peptide) assessment (P = .74). Similarly, Duke Activity Status Index scores of functional status improved in both groups over time; however, no differences were noted between groups (CE, 27.5 +/- 19.1; SPV, 19.9 +/- 12.0; P = .69). Freedom from reoperation at 12 years was 92% +/- 5% in patients with CEs and 75% +/- 5% in patients with SPVs (P = .65). Freedom from valve-related morbidity at 12 years was 82% +/- 7% in patients with CEs and 55% +/- 7% in patients with SPVs (P = .05). Finally, 12-year actuarial survival was 35% +/- 7% in patients with CEs and 52% +/- 7% in patients with SPVs (P = .37).
CONCLUSION: Although offering improved hemodynamic outcomes, the SPV did not afford superior mass regression or improved clinical outcomes up to 12 years after implantation. Copyright 2010 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20080264     DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.04.067

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg        ISSN: 0022-5223            Impact factor:   5.209


  9 in total

Review 1.  Exercise hemodynamics in valvular heart disease.

Authors:  Anna M Booher; David S Bach
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 2.  A look at recent improvements in the durability of tissue valves.

Authors:  Takahiro Nishida; Ryuji Tominaga
Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2013-01-24

3.  Risk-adjusted survival after tissue versus mechanical aortic valve replacement: a 23-year assessment.

Authors:  Jeffrey G Gaca; Robert M Clare; J Scott Rankin; Mani A Daneshmand; Carmelo A Milano; G Chad Hughes; Walter G Wolfe; Donald D Glower; Peter K Smith
Journal:  J Heart Valve Dis       Date:  2013-11

4.  The Sorin Freedom SOLO stentless tissue valve: early outcomes after aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Garip Altintas; Adem Ilkay Diken; Onur Hanedan; Okan Yurdakok; Sertan Ozyalcin; Seref Alp Kucuker; Mehmet Ali Ozatik
Journal:  Tex Heart Inst J       Date:  2013

5.  Stented bioprostheses in aortic position.

Authors:  J Cremer; J Schöttler; R Petzina; G Hoffmann
Journal:  HSR Proc Intensive Care Cardiovasc Anesth       Date:  2012

Review 6.  Stentless aortic valve replacement: an update.

Authors:  Junjiro Kobayashi
Journal:  Vasc Health Risk Manag       Date:  2011-06-02

7.  Two-Year Clinical Follow-Up Assessment of the Novel Cingular Surgical Bovine Pericardial Valve.

Authors:  Jinmiao Chen; Minzhi Lv; Yuntao Lu; Jiahui Fu; Yingqiang Guo; Liang Tao; Xinmin Zhou; Tianxiang Gu; Lai Wei; Tao Hong; Chunsheng Wang
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2021-12-13

8.  One-year outcome with a bovine pericardial valve.

Authors:  Jinmiao Chen; Chen He; Minzhi Lv; Yingqiang Guo; Liang Tao; Tao Hong; Chunsheng Wang
Journal:  JTCVS Open       Date:  2020-04-21

9.  Geometric changes in aortic root replacement using Freestyle prosthesis.

Authors:  Anja Osswald; Alina Zubarevich; Arian Arjomandi Rad; Robert Vardanyan; Konstantin Zhigalov; Daniel Wendt; Bastian Schmack; Ahmed Mashhour; Arjang Ruhparwar; Alexander Weymann
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2021-07-28       Impact factor: 1.637

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.